PDA

View Full Version : What would your comeback to this be PLEASE!!




zahirakids
10-04-2007, 02:08 PM
I am on a very large forum of which most people are liberal not all but a large part of them are.

Someone had tried to start a thread in support of Ron Paul and 36 pages later it seems like a bunch of mumbo jumbo to me.

I posted how if you really want to know the truth about Ron Paul you will find it out for yourself

Here is the last thing posted on the thread:


Have done, and the truth is that a lot of mamas here are campaigning to get an anti-gay-rights, racist, pro-freedom-to-discriminate, anti-separation-of-church-and-state guy elected president by masquerading him as the only way we can get out if Iraq and avoid a fascist police state.

I also find it REALLY disturbing that his supporters follow orders as to how they should and should not discuss him - like what you're doing here. Refusing to debate and instead telling people to go back to his site.


I really don't know how to respond to these people I have tried but I just can't think anymore as this has been going on for months now.

Does anyone have a good comeback to this??

EvilEngineer
10-04-2007, 02:11 PM
Hmm.. how about.

"Yo Momma so fat!"

ClockwiseSpark
10-04-2007, 02:13 PM
Considering the fact that none of that is true, either they haven't done the research they claim or they're just trying to spout BS and hoping that people will believe it.

Alopederii
10-04-2007, 02:15 PM
How about something along the lines of:

Your post sounds like you are very anti-Paul and very closed-minded. I don't want to waste my time "debating" with your points (which sounds like only propaganda) when you can easily visit RonPaul2008.com, RonPaulLibrary.org, or YouTube and see for yourself what Paul is or is not.

However, if you or anyone else would like to debate, I'm up for it!

Lord Xar
10-04-2007, 02:21 PM
Well, you can start by simply saying what i say..

"That is a completely intellectually dishonest response. Ron Paul is NOT anti-gay, he is NOT racist and for you to say such things really bemoans your own lack of knowledge on him. Your group mentality is what causes divisiveness. Also, your statements are very slanderous as they are not true. You would like to spread this propaganda because you support a candidates who is in bed with special interests and would love for this Republic to be a socialist state in which every single group is greater than each individual.

You have not done your homework. Until you do, perhaps you should abstain from commenting before you make more of an azz of yourself.

So many of you can support persons who say one thing one day, another thing on another day. Or somebody who says they will this or that for your group to get your vote. But I suggest you really get informed. Interesting that BOTH of the frontfunners (hillary and guiliani) both have suggested that the collective is GREATER than the individual. You think on that. You talk of rights for this, or rights for that... rights are attributed to the individual, not groups. This is NOT racist, it is infact anti-racist. The antithesis of what YOU WOULD call hate etc.. Please, for your sake - get informed. The MSM kool-Aid has saturated you.
"

theseus51
10-04-2007, 02:22 PM
You can modify this if you want, but I would say something like:

People all have their equal, individual rights. People don't get rights because they're gay, or minorities, they all have equal rights. The Government giving one group special rights is just as bad as the discrimination you are against. It creates creates a victim mentality, causing further divisiveness. There are always those who are going to be discriminatory in their beliefs, but you can't solve discrimination by more discrimination.

cujothekitten
10-04-2007, 02:22 PM
What's the forum? I'll sign up and bring a few friends that debate constantly.

wsc321
10-04-2007, 02:23 PM
I'm a newbie, but I'll give my 2 cents:

1) Keep in mind some people, unfortunately, are just past reason. If you get the feeling your debating with one, I'd just calmly state that you understand their position but disagree with it. Then state what you believe and exit the thread.

2) Calling Ron Paul "anti gay rights" is totally untrue from what I understand. He is about as fair as one can be: he isn't for special rights for ANYONE. He doesn't believe in grouping people by race or sexual orientation. He believes in Americans as "individuals" - each with the same rights. No more, no less. (Try the Wikipedia article's section on racism and "don't ask don't tell" for a few quotes.)

3) The racial slander is probably years old drivel that has since been discredited by numerous sources pertaining to a memo or something like it released in Ron Paul's name by a staff person. If the person you are debating is at all open (they don't sound like they are), ask them to state their evidence. If they are in fact pushing this old line (lie), you just have to cite a few sources of vindication and then ask the person to get their facts straight. (Which, BTW, could blow up their credibility.)

Those are a few starters...

LibertyEagle
10-04-2007, 02:23 PM
Well, you can start by simply saying what i say..

"That is a completely intellectually dishonest response. Ron Paul is NOT anti-gay, he is NOT racist and for you to say such things really bemoans your own lack of knowledge on him. Your group mentality is what causes divisiveness. Also, your statements are very slanderous as they are not true. You would like to spread this propaganda because you support a candidates who is in bed with special interests and would love for this Republic to be a socialist state in which every single group is greater than each individual.

You have not done your homework. Until you do, perhaps you should abstain from commenting before you make more of an azz of yourself.

So many of you can support persons who say one thing one day, another thing on another day. Or somebody who says they will this or that for your group to get your vote. But I suggest you really get informed. Interesting that BOTH of the frontfunners (hillary and guiliani) both have suggested that the collective is GREATER than the individual. You think on that. You talk of rights for this, or rights for that... rights are attributed to the individual, not groups. This is NOT racist, it is infact anti-racist. The antithesis of what YOU WOULD call hate etc.. Please, for your sake - get informed. The MSM kool-Aid has saturated you.
"

BINGO. ding, ding, ding. :)

cujothekitten
10-04-2007, 02:26 PM
P.s. The answer to that "question" is; making it illegal for people to be racist, as bad as it is, is creating a thought crime. If you don't like the fact that someone is racist or homophobic then you must debate them on the merits of their philosophy, not bar them from believing it. Anything more than that is orwellian.

As for separation of church state explain to them that Paul is 100% behind freedom of thought. He supports private prayer in public and in school.

quickmike
10-04-2007, 02:32 PM
I am on a very large forum of which most people are liberal not all but a large part of them are.

Someone had tried to start a thread in support of Ron Paul and 36 pages later it seems like a bunch of mumbo jumbo to me.

I posted how if you really want to know the truth about Ron Paul you will find it out for yourself

Here is the last thing posted on the thread:




I really don't know how to respond to these people I have tried but I just can't think anymore as this has been going on for months now.





Does anyone have a good comeback to this??


Tell them:

"He wants freedom for everyone, not just blacks, whites, gays, straigh people, or any other group. Why is that such a bad thing in your eyes? Dont you want to be able to live your life the way you want without interference from someone else? Dont you want everyone treated equally under the laws of the constitution? I dont see how anyone can legitimately argue against his message without being a full on socialist."


Thats what I would say, and ask them to elaborate.

Freedom
10-04-2007, 02:48 PM
Have done, and the truth is that a lot of mamas here are campaigning to get an anti-gay-rights, racist, pro-freedom-to-discriminate, anti-separation-of-church-and-state guy elected president by masquerading him as the only way we can get out if Iraq and avoid a fascist police state.

Anti-gay rights - Ron Paul has said that groups don't have rights, only individuals have rights given to them by their Creator. So there is no such thing as "gay" rights, or "womens'" rights or "fat ugly peoples'" rights. There are only individual rights. Each individual has the same exact rights as any other individual. How can this be construed as being anti-gay?

Racist - You're right, Ron Paul is biased against the race of anti-Constitutionalists, who mostly live in the halls of our federal government. As long as you are not one of them, you have nothing to fear from Ron Paul.

Pro-freedom-to-discriminate - Ron Paul is all about free markets. For example, if you are competing for a college scholarship, no one should get an advantage because of their "insert-special-status here". Do the Olympics allow one-legged runners to start at the 50-meter mark in a 100-meter race? No, it's a race for the fastest runners in the world to see who is the fastest of them all. Setting one group ahead of another interferes with the free market and causes undesirable distortions.

Anti-separation-of-church-and-state - Using the Constitution as the foundation for his every vote, Ron supports separation of state from the church, i.e. the government should have no say in your personal religion. You are free to worship whoever or whatever you choose.

Masquerading - There's no shenanigan's with Ron Paul - check out his voting record; it's 100% Constitutional!

Only way to get out of Iraq - Correct!

Only way to avoid a facist state - Correct!


I also find it REALLY disturbing that his supporters follow orders as to how they should and should not discuss him - like what you're doing here. Refusing to debate and instead telling people to go back to his site.

Ron Paul believes in free markets and conducts his campaigns the same way as well. The supporters of Ron Paul are very frustrated because the campaign will NOT tell us what to do. We are free to do what we think is best for Ron Paul to get nominated. Sometimes we get it right and sometimes we fall short; just like the free market.

I would encourage a debate on issues. Ad hominem attacks and name-calling just make you look foolish.

Syren123
10-04-2007, 03:03 PM
Does anyone have a good comeback to this??

Bite me.

zahirakids
10-04-2007, 05:11 PM
Thank you all sooooo much!! :p

zahirakids
10-04-2007, 05:28 PM
No time to get to the rest right now, but
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers."

This is the response I got....:rolleyes:

klamath
10-04-2007, 06:55 PM
You can't win them all. It sounds like very angry reverse racist to me.

ronpaulitician
10-04-2007, 07:03 PM
What Freedom said.

CurtisLow
10-04-2007, 07:17 PM
Hmmm

cujothekitten
10-04-2007, 07:40 PM
This is the response I got....:rolleyes:

This dude needs to think about this for a second:


The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.

I'm an atheist and I know what he's talking about. He has said that the reduction of government would mean that civic groups would play more of a roll in the community. When he says "churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance" he's saying that the church would perform many of the social services (i.e. charity work) for the community. He's not saying that the church would be the government... it could be any civic group, be it atheist or Jewish.

Also:

The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

Clearly he doesn't see Christianity as part of government, just that people should be able to worship freely and openly.


The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America

That's true. If they didn't want people to be religious then they wouldn't have put something in the constitution to protect worship. Many atheists are put off by this article because they’re so used to republicans trying to turn America into a theocracy